Friday, April 24, 2009

The 70's were a disaster for pets. Overpopulation was a serious problem. The top barbie breeders ran high volume commercial kennels, and neutering was almost unheard of.

But the 70's were (to Ms. X's constant surprise) 3 decades ago and counting. And the pet overpopulation problem of the 70's is relatively non-existent today. Neutering is very common, and the top barbie breeders despise commercial kennels.

Things have improved GREATLY. This despite an increase in human population, that one would naturally think would correspondingly increase the unwanted pet population. And it was all done without a lot of horribly restrictive legislation and regulation.

Why then, are we today attempting to cure the cure by destroying freedom?

We can compare it to current mainstream economic thinking. Economically, we are facing a problem of past catastrophic proportions. In the 'Great Depression', we attempted solutions that failed utterly. Today, we are attempting the same solutions, only much more strongly.

In one case, we did nothing (no governmental control), and things got better. In the other case, we enacted a lot of governmental control, and things got worse. At first glance you might think there is no correlation between the two problems, and solutions then and now.

But there is. It is this.

The correlation is control. One group wants to control a larger group, so they do it by government-proxy. When a person can't morally, or legally, force their neighbor to bend to their will, they do the next best thing and troll up an emotional frenzy in a few people to get their government to do the dirty work of forcing their neighbor to bend to their will.

Control by government proxy.

Peta-tics wanting to end pet ownership are the animal equivalent of the Trilateral Commission promoting world monetary policy.

Keynesian policies are the popular response to the current economic crisis because of control. They ENCOURAGE, even MANDATE governmental control. And that, ultimately, is what people want.

Peta-tic policies are popular because they too ENCOURAGE and MANDATE government control.

The facts that one will bring economic ruin and commmie style breadlines, and the other the practical end of pet ownership, are so inconceivable to most Americans that they are dismissed out of hand.

I am not certain most Americans would care if they did believe it.

If you think stacks of cages and piles of excrement are distasteful under basic animal cruelty laws, you are badly prepared for the cruelty you will see under black market, profit only breeding systems.

If you thought banning cockfighting and dog fighting would simply end the cruelty and life would continue as normal for everyone who did not force roosters or dogs to fight each other, you might want to pay attention to the ongoing attempts to have the post office censor your mail.

The attempt is an end run around the first amendment, which so far has protected free speech even if it involves things that make you ill. Videos, for example, of bullfights are legal to own and view (for the present) as long the content was not filmed in this country.

But could they get the post office to censor bullfighting magazines and refuse to transport them through the government (tax-payer funded) mail system?

Most people have no problem destroying the first amendment (or any freedom) if it allows them to control (by proxy) what they don't like.

They will say it is worth it, after all, if more roosters are killed and genetic diversity lost and freedom of speech trampled but *cruelty* is stopped. And should a video of roosters fighting without human provocation land some one in jail?

Collateral damage. Not just the purview of neocon warmongers.

But now, NOW the horrifying cruelty of a dog with matted fur and a wire cage (designed to keep him out of his feces) has spawned an equivocal grasping for control and we stand witness to unprecedented attacks on the gentle pastime of dog breeding.

Bo's breeder has joined the self-destructive brigade, expressing alarm that the painfully small genepool of the Portuguese Water Dog might be expanded at the hands of puppymillers. Perhaps she reasoned, an offensive barb might shield her from the fate of VP Biden's GSD Breeder.

Dog wardens from the state showed up at Brown's Wolf Den kennel, repeatedly, for inspections.

"I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don't tell you why," Brown told the newspaper.

She was found "not guilty" for each citation, but hiring a lawyer for the court hearings has cost her $4,000 so far in legal fees.

Brown says she and Biden both received death threats from animal activists.

The Obama Aura might protect Bo's breeder, but daily the rest of us are regaled with attempts at stringent and invasive control over the free dog market.

Ohio wants to mandate "appropriate protection against parasites". Will it allow for holistic approaches?

Ohio also wants to set up a "kennel control authority board" which would include a representative from the AKC. That's right. The "non-profit" dog registry wants CONTROL AUTHORITY over how every dog is bred and raised.

Perhaps they want to make sure every dog will qualify to star in films like this?

"The vast majority of breeders are responsible and they do a wonderful job taking care of their animals, but there are some bad apples," he says.

Just a few bad apples. Would those be real puppymills? Or just breeders that don't like AKC?

Does it really matter? "Puppymillers" (by any definition) are more hated than Micheal Vick.

The reactionary assault will have devastating consequences. Care to wager if it will be years or months before a wonderful little book like "Raising Puppies for Profit and Pleasure" is no longer protected under the First Amendment?

This is in part, a crisis of confidence. Breeders have no confidence in their pet buying public. Who is for real, and who is a peta-tic spy? They are withdrawing into themselves and closing ranks. They are, justifiably, abandoning the practice of welcoming customers to their kennels - the one practice that in wide usage could do more to stamp out substandard breeding facilities than anything. Even large commercial operations under full government oversight are scared of peta-tics and reluctant to welcome outsiders.

So while shelter numbers are at all time lows, and adoption rates are at all time highs (and the 70s are only a bad memory), the fever pitch of the anti-puppymill crusades are guaranteeing we will never truly minimize the real travesties.

Instead, the fear that closes kennels to the public on one side, and the legislation that drives more breeders underground on the other, will fixate the real puppymills as permanent features of society. Regulation and mob-rule by government proxy always serves to de-civilize our world.

So go on. Do something about it. Stand up for the right of your local puppymill to exist.

Be Mencken.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H.L. Mencken

2 comments:

Friend of mine is on the receiving end of a hate campaign by the Breed Police right now. They are going so far as to try to get ac involved, fraudulently. My own litter I'm expecting has received attention from these people. Really, why can't people just mind their own business? We have already lost the fight to keep our right to breed dogs, we've been shot in the back by 'friendly' fire.

"The facts that one will bring economic ruin and commmie style breadlines, and the other the practical end of pet ownership, are so inconceivable to most Americans that they are dismissed out of hand." It is 2011, where are the bread lines and end of pet ownership?

You seem to say that pet overpopulation is a thing of the past. I personally was in the heart of dog health from 1986-2005 as a veterinary nurse, and i can attest that there were still too many young healthy dogs that were mistreated and/or lacked homes. I think laws are needed to prosecute the worst offenders. Enforcing these laws with a political or financial gain in mind for the government is just as abhorrent to me as some of the suffering that still occurs.